Loneliness and the Postmodern View of Language
I mentioned in my last post that the beliefs described in the McLaren interview led to Hansen’s (the interviewer’s) loneliness for God, and I’d like to explain why I think this is the case.
For those who fully embrace the idea that ‘the God who really exists must be better than the concepts of God that I have, and so I have to continually call on the God who is greater than my best concept of God,’ and that ‘only wonder understands; concepts create idols,’ God becomes more of an abstract idea than a person. Why? Because personal knowledge of Him and His character (who He is and who He is not) is always beyond our grasp. It’s difficult to love, trust, and experience a being you don’t know.
This is a case where I feel that many in the emerging church would agree with what Amy writes in essence, but we would have strong objections to our philosophical views represented in such a way. I know I strongly object.
Of course, I cannot speak for Brian McLaren, so do not take this post as an apology for any of Brian’s thoughts on language and knowledge.
First off, I do not feel that any abstract idea falls further from understanding God as a person than propositional statements about God. If I describe my best friend as a person, do those words contain the essence of that person? We can’t even completely capture the essence of a human being with our language, why would we think we can completely capture God with our language?
Just as our statements about our best friend would fall short, statements about God fall short. Even inspired statements about God fall short. We must experience a relationship with God to even comprehend what those words are pointing towards. Language is meaningless without experience.
When I think of the statement “only wonder understands; concepts create idols,” I do not mean language cannot help us to know God. Language points us in the right direction, and the experience of reading and understanding Scripture is vital to our knowledge of God. This does not mean we have to subscribe to modern views of linguistic which are inherently flawed in order to learn about God from the Bible.
Toward the end of the interview, Hansen expresses the despair he’s been struggling with. ‘How can anyone come close to God if words can’t help us truly know Him?’
I think an appropriate response to Hansen would be that words can help us truly know God, but “help” is the key word. They are not the end all be all and merely labeling a propositional statement “absolutely true” does little to help someone actually know God.
If you have intellectual questions about Christianity, I implore you to not cover them up by changing your view of knowledge, language, truth, and spiritual reality, or by postulating secret meanings ‘greater than’ the actual text of the Bible. If you don’t believe the Christianity of the Bible is really, actually true, deal with your questions. It is possible to be intellectually satisfied by a Christianity with a God who can be known and a Bible that can be trusted. This will take some time on your part to research, but the result is worth it.
What if your view of knowledge, language, truth, and spiritual reality changed because you realized your past view of knowledge, language, truth, and spiritual reality is a failed paradigm and actually hinders your knowledge of God? Amy focuses on those who use postmodern (or labeled such) philosophies to avoid God, but I’ve seen a great number of people who use the critiques of postmodern thought towards modern thought while not embracing all postmodern philosophy. And in this mindset, they are able to develop a deeper relationship with God. A God much greater than any concepts they can conceive.
Modern concepts of truth do not hold a privileged position. They are open to critique, and the Bible does not endorse modern concepts of truth. Neither does the Bible endorse postmodern concepts of truth. We struggle to understand God, and if in doing so we realize our philosophy is flawed, we change it.
God never intended for us to be lost in a fog of ideas about Him; He wants us to have the joy of knowing Him. (This is not to say we’ll know Him perfectly in this life, nor that there isn’t an indefinable, experiential aspect to our knowledge of God. I claim only that we can know what He has revealed to us through His words and that this knowledge is crucial for true relationship.) As John 17:3 says, ‘This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.’
This is where I think Amy is a lot closer to most emerging church persons than she probably realizes. If we did not believe you could know God, we would abandon the faith. In fact, though it doesn’t sound like “emerging church” talk, I find nothing objectionable in her statement, “I claim only that we can know what He has revealed to us through His words and that this knowledge is crucial for true relationship.)” Now if she had written, “I claim that we can only know…” we would have issue. But she recognizes there is an aspect of experience involved in knowing God. The disconnect I see is an apparent belief that you must have modern concepts of truth to know, where I feel modern concepts of truth hinder knowledge.
And how can we know Him? Not from contentless, conceptless experiences. In John 4:22-23, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, ‘You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.’
The Jews who worshiped God knew Him because they had His words about Himself. The Samaritans who did the same did not know God because they didn’t accept His words. Without true words about God, there is no true worship. And without true worship and communion with God, we remain in our loneliness.
And “true” words does not equal “true” worship. It is not a postmodern view of language which creates loneliness. Loneliness is found amongst those with modern views of language as well.
(Via The A-Team Blog.)
Leave a Reply